There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obamas big-government economic policies. We simply need more of them, and more time for them to work  or so the President and many academicians would have us believe.

Its interesting to watch Barack Obama run for re-election against his own track record. When he became President in January of 2009 he promised to fundamentally transform America, and in terms of our nations economic policies he has certainly achieved this objective.

But after almost three years of transforming- which has involved putting healthcare under government control, a government take-over of two car companies, huge expansions in government control over banking and lending institutions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to create green jobs, and a roughly 30% increase in government spending overall  nobody seems happy with the results (not even the President himself). In light of the history-making zero job growth month of August, things are perceived as being so bad that many Americans who once believed the Presidents promises about job creation and free healthcare are now wondering if  maybe  our government needs to try a different approach.

This doesnt seem to deter President Obama, or many of his ideological soul mates. At the White House, as in many universities, it is simply understood that private individuals and organizations only do reckless and self-serving things with wealth. And it is equally understood that when super smart politicians and government bureaucrats control greater portions of the nations wealth  with more taxation, more government spending, and more government regulations  well, those super smart politicians always produce great results for everybody.

Thus, despite the growing discontent among us everyday folks, the President is vowing more big-government programs, while highly educated intellectuals at universities and think tanks keep thinking of more big-government ideas. Well get to some of President Obamas plans in a moment. But first, consider this idea from Yale graduate Daniel Hamermesh, Ph.D., currently an Economics Professor at University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Hamermesh has proposed special legal protections for ugly people in the workplace. Yes, he calls them ugly rather than homely, and he argues that being ugly is a disability that should be protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Good looking people have all the advantages in this economy, Dr. Hamermesh suggests, and for purposes of administering a law, he reasons that we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. Affirmative Action for ugly people (another term he uses) would likely create lots of opportunities for employment law Attorneys, but it is difficult to imagine that this would incentivize businesses (other than law firms) to begin hiring again.

Then theres one of my favorites  the Spread The Jobs Around agenda from University of Michigan alumnus Dean Baker, Ph.D. As head of the left-wing Center For Economic And Policy Research in Washington, D.C., Dr. Baker has proposed that businesses be encouraged (read mandated) to stop laying-off workers, and instead be encouraged to cutback fulltime workers hours and wages so as to share the work and wages with everybody, and keep people on payrolls.

Spread the Jobs Around probably looks great on paper at Dr. Bakers office, and it sure seems like a super-smart guys clever way of preventing the unemployment rate from going higher (something Obama desperately needs). But if business owners are further restricted (government already places enormous constraints on hiring and firing practices) from hiring and firing whomever they need to in order to be profitable, businesses will have even more reasons to NOT hire new workers.

As for President Obama himself (by the way, his degree title is J.D. in case youre interested), he recently established a new division of our federal government whose agenda looks like the mission statement of a college diversity office. By Executive Order, the President has created The White House Office of Diversity And Inclusion.

Exactly what this office will attempt to do to business owners is unclear (and the lack of clarity from the government is yet another one of those things that creates uncertainty in the economy and inhibits job growth  but I digress), yet its stated agenda reads as follows: Eliminate demographic group imbalances in targeted occupations and improve workforce diversity. To attain this, special initiatives have been created targeting specific groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, women and gays and lesbians. In short, the President has a problem with some of his key supporters  Black and Hispanic people in particular: the unemployment rates among these groups are in some regions topping 30%. The goal of the Diversity and Inclusion office would appear to be to threaten and coerce businesses into hiring more workers from these minority categories, so as to enhance President Obamas chances for re-election.

Well know more of what the President intends to do about jobs after his upcoming speech. But we can be assured of this right now: Barack Obama will seek more control of the economy as a means of fixing it.

Yup, typical Keynesian economic response to failure. . . we didn't spend enough, that's why it didn't work. However, "enough" is never defined and is always a moving target. A trillion dollars didn't work because we didn't spend 2 trillion. Two trillion didn't work, etc.

This is exactly how they argue "Man Made Global Warming". No matter what the weather conditions are at the time, it is always proof positive for its existence. Too hot. . . GW, Too cold . . GW . . just right . . GW.

Not necessarily, the Ph.D.’s in the hard sciences use “science”, “technology”, the “scientific method”, “proof in the laboratory,” and other such terms to justify their own “science,” which is also often politically-driven in order to get liberal government grants. I understand a person can’t get a master’s degree as well as a Ph.D. in biology if he disbelieves in “evolution,” which they no longer consider “just” a theory but essential to the total understanding of biology. Government has corrupted all fields of knowledge with the carrot of popular “grants.”

What shocks me is how few people see how exactly 2008 copied 1929. Our experts say the same things they did then; the only difference is that the Democrat got elected right then instead of three years later. People ought to remember this, either from their own memories, or from older family members.

But because it worked last time, the Democrats are STILL blaming the Republicans!!! And the Republican are letting them get away with it!!! America couldn’t spend itself into prosperity then, and it can’t now.

Successful dictators of the past, having achieved power, moved with dizzying speed to consolidate it and eliminate opposition. Obama has tried to do exactly what Hitler, Mao and Lenin did, with some success. Only the strength of the American culture has prevented him from creating a full-on police state.

I'd like all those folks that bad mouthed GWB to step forward and take a bow.... I don't think the dems could have done a better job disenfranchising conservative voters in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that tactic again - “let's paint the conservative as a moderate so all the conservatives stay home.”

BHO didn't appoint himself to the job - he had alot conservatives that were too proud to get out and vote for the lesser of two evils and the result was that they voted for BHO in the end by not showing up.

How many people use rude rhetoric to describe convserative candidates rather than principled arguments ? I hear alot of that on talk radio.... I wonder how many Mike Savage fans stayed home.... (and I like Dr. Savage).

Unfortunately, you are exactly right - I’ve met and had to work with too many scientists and engineers who have absolutely no idea of how the economy, government or market works. Nor, do they have any interest in finding out. All too often they believe themselves to be either ‘above’ or ‘untouched’ by politics or what happens in government. In other cases, they see that as being irrational and go with what they ‘feel’ is right. A disaster either way.

There is absolutely no comparison between a PhD in physics, math, or engineering and a PhD in economics, education, or political science.

After WWII, the power of science to understand and control the great forces of the universe was obvious and indisputable. This dismayed the irrationalists, who saw their control over the terms of "the great conversation" slipping away. The strength and confidence of America, its power to shape the world culturally and technologically, was a horrible setback to them.

It took many years for them to implement their response, but they are as patient as the Devil himself.

Part of their response was to debase the prestige of science. One of the ways this was accomplished was through the proliferation of all these bogus "sciences," economics and political "science" (as you rightly put it) being just two of these; you can, I'm sure, think of several others.

These fields attract wannabees, second- and third-raters, of whom John Maynard Keynes was a typical, humdrum example... except that his body of "work" gave politicians a license to expand central control over economies. For this reason, he has been virtually canonized by the elites, his nonsense taught to generations of fellow-wannabees in halls of higher learning built by the wealth of better men.

22
posted on 09/04/2011 8:37:31 AM PDT
by Steely Tom
(Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)

At the White House, as in many universities, it is simply understood that private individuals and organizations only do reckless and self-serving things with wealth. And it is equally understood that when super smart politicians and government bureaucrats control greater portions of the nations wealth  with more taxation, more government spending, and more government regulations  well, those super smart politicians always produce great results for everybody.

After all, one need only examine the policies of California to see how well it works!!!

24
posted on 09/04/2011 8:42:50 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")

I'd like all those folks that bad mouthed GWB to step forward and take a bow.... I don't think the dems could have done a better job disenfranchising conservative voters in 2008.

We did things your way in 2000. Voting for a "moderate" "he can win" "compassionate conservative" that the left then demonized anyway got us a Democrat majority in congress in 2006, once those "compassionate" policies of "reaching across the aisle" predictably failed.

We did things your way in California when, after two successful conservative governors in Reagan and Deukmejian we elected "moderate" Pete Wilson. He, with Carl Rove's help, gutted the CAGOP conservative base and installed his crooked corporate gamesters. Within two years California elected Gray Davis and headed predictably down the tubes.

We did it again with "fiscal conservative" Arnold Schwarzenegger. The results were even worse.

If you go back in history, the ONLY Republican presidents who were followed by another, albeit "moderate" Republican, were Coolidge and Reagan, both conservatives.

Electing RINOS as some kind of intermediate step toward conservatism fails, every time, because the policies they enact NEVER undo what the left has done. They are merely watered down progressivism still headed over the communist cliff.

So, I'd like YOU to "take a bow" for the disaster GWB inflicted upon this nation.

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan

No more traitors. No more RINOS. I'm not doing things your way in 2012.

26
posted on 09/04/2011 9:02:39 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")

The Soviets gave Marxism-Leninism sixty years to work - and then gave up.
As Jane Fonda stated the only reason communism failed is because the people fail to grasp it.Obama seems to have the same mind set.

The problem with conservative voters in 2008 is the primary field was so full of conservatives that the vote didn’t just split, it shattered - leaving the lone left-leaning R to gather a plurality, take the nomination, and give the Right a choice between evil and evil lite.

The problem with conservative voters in 2008 is the primary field was so full of conservatives that the vote didnt just split, it shattered - leaving the lone left-leaning R to gather a plurality, take the nomination, and give the Right a choice between evil and evil lite.

The other problem with the 2008 field was Fred Thompson's fan dance. It precluded conservatives selecting and organizing behind a committed conservative candidate until it was too late. Sarah Palin might well be playing the very same role.

30
posted on 09/04/2011 10:31:13 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")

Politics is typically the choice between two evils.... even the founding fathers knew this. But it is a majority rule. If the right sits out then in effect they are voting for the left... particularly true if the choice is between two.

So if you want perfection in your politics you won't get it, unless you are the king. If the choice is evil and evil lite I'd probably go with evil lite, and join a Tea Party to change and try harder to change my choice in the future.

So I will take that bow for trying even if I end up with a RINO and then Ill assume you will take that bow for BHO - because you didnt.

A vote for Reagan is a vote for Brown!!!

A vote for McClintock is a vote for Bustamante!!!

It wasn't nearly true then, and it isn't true now.

I'll warn you politely now: The reason I pinged JR is that your rhetoric is exactly coincident with that played by FairOpinion, now banned. We've had it with RINOs here on FR. The historical record proves that electing them backfires. The historical record proves that electing conservatives leads to more Republicans. What we must accomplish is to rid the Party of it's country club corporate "progressive" leadership at every level. Let them decide whether they'd rather have a socialist than a conservative in the general election. Reagan's success, despite the same arguments you are making now, proves that conservative governance is worth the risk. The people already know what they're going to get from the left, good and hard. They've had it with crooked government too.

All we have to prove is that corporate racketeering is even more true of the left than it is of Republicans, that they are owned not only by unions but by global banking, real estate, and transnational investment exporting American jobs. Sure, they pander to the welfare queens in order to buy a majority with other people's money, but look at how that has worked out for the poor. Conservatives are the friend of the little guy. It isn't hard to prove.

33
posted on 09/04/2011 11:56:57 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")

Nicely taken out of context. I was speaking of the TWO party system in the post to which I was responding. I should have anticipated your ilk doing that and apologize to the forum for the lack of specificity.

Either way, we're no more likely going to stop the two party system then the world is to throw away all nuclear weapons.

How positively Whiggish of you. I'm not so clairvoyant, nor am I advocating such; I was instead clarifying the historical record. The very idea of a Democratic Republican Party, Inc. was unknown at the time the Constitution was written and implemented.

Ironically, the lesser of two evils two party system is itself the lesser of two other evils. ;-)

Go ahead and support said bald-faced assertion. I want a cogent argument supported by fact or reference.

36
posted on 09/04/2011 12:38:17 PM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")

I would hazard a guess that you actually would rather have liberal dems like BHO than a conservative you don't agree 100% with. Which makes you just as much as a danger to the conservative cause as any DUmmy.

Take your rhetoric to the foothills and build a wee fort and leave the adults to govern, and quite polluting the party with your do or die crap... it is your ilk in part I can thank for the economy.

I'm tired of you people electing dems because you don't get your way...

I want someone as conservative as I can get - I just won't tell everyone that they should sit out if the person I want doesn't make it.

So I will take that bow for trying even if I end up with a RINO and then Ill assume you will take that bow for BHO - because you didnt.

What a crappy analysis. The amount of hard-core conservatives who stayed home in 2008 was minuscule. All of them could have voted for McCain and he still would have lost. The reasons Obama won are twofold: 1) novelty (guilt-ridden whites could finally "prove" they weren't racist); 2) Bush pissed off all independents.

Again, all of the hard-core conservatives who stayed home in 2008 could have voted for McCain and he would have lost. You can't win a presidential election when your predecessor has killed off all independent support.

Newguy - you are right it is a crappy analysis, and I didn't say “hard-core conservative staying home were to blame”.

I said if you stay home you are not part of the process and you get to take the credit for not voting for a republican, and in a predominantly two party system if you don't vote for the conservative / Republican you get to take some credit for the loss of the Republican or conversely the democratic win.

And furthermore if you disenfranchise other would-be conservative voters I may be inclined to go further as to the harm a person can do.

In the end we want the same things, and we need good conservative candidates - hopefully we won't build the proverbial circular firing squad like we did in 2006 and 2008.

Whereupon you put out three posts, two of which were completely redundant. Somebody get you just a little skeered? Could there be just a little guilt there maybe? Hmmm???

I would hazard a guess that you actually would rather have liberal dems like BHO than a conservative you don't agree 100% with.

How silly. NOBODY agrees 100%. So in order to have a case, you simply had to pick the hyperbolic rhetorical number, because you know any reasonable charge might be refuted, especially given your apparent history of "compromises."

For the record: I voted for Hunter in the primary and McCain in the general. OTOH, I voted against Schwarzenegger at every opportunity for which history bears me out.

You see, it's a matter of judgement, not fear. Let's see which one it is in your case.

Which makes you just as much as a danger to the conservative cause as any DUmmy.

God how stupid. You don't know who I am or what I've done. Worse, you posted without checking. Had you done so, you would have found out that I have authored two books, and exercised a rather extensive record of posting original and well documented articles of some substance here on FR over the last decade.

Can you say that? No.

Take your rhetoric to the foothills and build a wee fort and leave the adults to govern, and quite polluting the party with your do or die crap... it is your ilk in part I can thank for the economy.

Horseshit. It was the jumping Jim Jeffords, Snowe, McCaskill, IOW RINOS who fell for the regulatory restrictions and socialized risks that killed this economy, from Dodd/Frank, to using Fannie Mae as a plaything, to pretending to care about "The Environment" by banning domestic production (which pleased oil company stockholders to no end) that put us in this mess. That is what got Congress summarily ejected in 2006. Yes, the public should have fixed it by nominating conservatives, but their own GOP stood square against them, preferring "moderate" status quo incumbents to principle. Just like you do.

I'm tired of you people electing dems because you don't get your way...

You don't even know who I am, much less who, "you people" are. The reality is that you cave to your fears and vote for RINOS even in primaries because "he can win" while rationalizing it as a "step in the right direction." It's crap.

As the record proves, there has NEVER, in the 20th Century been a moderate progressive Republican followed by a more conservative Republican. Not one (Ford doesn't count because he never won an election). In fact, in the only time a progressive was followed by another Republican at all (Teddy by Taft), the latter went on an immediate strengthening of regulatory government, which led to straight to Wilson. On the other hand, the TWO conservative presidents in that century pleased the people so much they elected a Republican to follow. Unfortunately, both were RINOS. Every GOP "progressive" has got into political trouble for corruption or induced "progressive" policies that induced sufficient damage to get tossed, with the exception of Roosevelt, in that the unconstitutional regulatory policies he instituted in the name of "good government" had not been around long enough to show themselves for the political corruption they in fact were even then. In either case, a leftist media has always ensured that conservatism takes the blame when the corporate crooks get caught. See: "Nixon."

As the record proves, once said "moderate" representative is ensconced, the power of incumbency is so great that it is nearly impossible to unseat said malefactor in a primary (especially in the Senate).

I want someone as conservative as I can get - I just won't tell everyone that they should sit out if the person I want doesn't make it.

And here is where we get to the lie you keep telling yourself. You see, the phrase, "as I can get" presumes that you absolutely KNOW what the threshold for "he can win" really is. Being a frightened conservative, you just want to be sure. So you back off your preferences and accept less, even in the primaries. Hence, although you think yourself a conservative, you vote like a moderate.

not much of history buff are you Carry.

Had you even the three clicks worth of research it would have taken to realize how stupid this statement is, you would never have done so.

Unlike your posting record, my understanding of history has been validated many times on FR. Such as HERE, HERE, or HERE.

Did you write anything like that "history buff"?

You were rattled, you were rushed, and you didn't think. You acted out of fear. There are enough of you that the GOP can be herded into nominating a "he can win" RINOS like frightened sheep.

I never said the founding fathers approved or disapproved of political parties.... I said they didnt agree.... which is part of the political process.

Here is what you wrote: Politics is typically the choice between two evils.... even the founding fathers knew this.

No, it is not, nor did the founders believe that political choices were always binary. Even then, there was a history of nations where choices involved multiple parties or even no parties in decision-making at all, such as Switzerland, of which they were well aware.

Show me. So far, it looks to me like "evil lite" is your preference because that is what say you do. You don't trust your fellow voters to make the choice you say you prefer. I couldn't care less what you say. As far as I am concerned, you are internally dishonest. I care what you do.

Your second choice looks like democrat.

I have never voted democrat.

45
posted on 09/07/2011 5:34:59 AM PDT
by Carry_Okie
(GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.